Carry a clear message in these demonstrations: Neither green nor pink immediate stop! by
Alternating Current ---- We are witnessing a live deliberately publicized psychodrama
about the EU treaty and refused to call the EELV vote while his ministers will have to
demonstrate their solidarity with the government. Meanwhile, prepare antinuclear
demonstrations. They will be a critical support to the government or will they be marked
by a resounding rejection of nuclear pink or green? ---- How to interpret this
psychodrama? A partition between two well-oiled actors / authors in the same room to give
the impression qu'EELV is not yet absorbed by the PS, it retains a critical capacity and
independence, calming and those who, based or eco-friendly environments, began to
seriously question the appropriateness of the agreement with the Socialists?

A hint of impertinence about the European treaty, but that will not discredit up (contrary
to the expressed editorial in Le Monde on 25 September) an image of responsibility and
ability to take power patiently knitted over the years?

Or else a real crisis will worsen in the weeks and months to come, and that is not
controlled by one or by the other? A crisis which had already felt the presence imposed
when the base E. Against N. Joly Hulot and future government apparatchiks while the Green
Party activist suffered a hemorrhage consistent.

It should be noted that this "crisis", real or staged, comes just days after nearly
standing ovation as environmentalists in their almost all have given to F. Holland during
the recent environmental conference. This display of complacency and credence in the eyes
of the public, the extraction of shale gas would not, that was close ... Fessenheim in six
years, and 800,000 housing environmentalists would see the day, as many 'false claims made
credible but a way to use words in thinking that other uses! So, what is condemned is not
shale gas hydraulic fracturing but (and again!) Fessenheim close perhaps, but not without
having absorbed millions to put standards and thus make possible its extension; and then
the formulas used, such as "energy transition" to be translated as "promoting nuclear
power." A few days later, two ministers attended the PS parliamentary days of EELV Nantes
to demonstrate the entente cordiale supposed reign.

After that, he had to be a point of contention not to give the impression of complete
subjugation!

It is in this political context that particular future will unfold antinuclear protests
against the airport Notre-Dame-des-Landes and against plans for shale gas.

Manipulated demos

October 13, Laval, Lyon, Bordeaux, Strasbourg, Paris, Metz, Lille and Narbonne will be
events organized by the Nuclear Exit Network and local associations, and supported by EELV
to demand stops construction of EPR Flammanville, its EHV line Cotentin-Maine, and
reactors for more than thirty years, in particular the Fessenheim.

Change and exit the nuclear era, they say. Yes, but when? Should we be present or not?
Many comrades are quite reluctant. There is, in fact, serve as a stepping stone to forces
that we fight and not to be large enough to avoid any recovery. We would be looking rather
for us to try a visible and clear to leave no ground entirely free of those forces which
work is in pursuit of nuclear production.

Cleavage that pits the proponents of "immediate stop" to stop those who advocate a
"progressive" is old in the antinuclear movement. He bounces today simply because after
Fukushima, the "immediate halt" has become a claim so obvious that proponents of phasing
(with all its variants) are required to integrate this by engaging in all politicians and
linguistic contortions possible. The term "immediate" has become symbolic, it was enough
to distract him. Thus was born the concept of twisted "immediate decision" that can impose
all variants: true, "immediate decision for immediate release", but also "immediate
decision to exit ..." 10, 20 or 30 years, or immediately start making out ...

But then, the "immediate stop" that we put forward can not be reduced, and it has long
been a matter of time! This "immediate stop" is not a fetish, it became the symbol of a
broader political divide between ecology and social class that fits into an
anti-capitalist perspective and antiproductiviste and the proponents of neo-capitalism
green energy issues which can be used to revive once again a market economy in crisis.

IF JAPAN DID IT ...

We know we can not stop a plant by simply pressing a button. We also know that if we
stopped all plants there would not be enough electricity to run the company as it
currently operates. But, in fact, we do not want it to work well! And "energy savings"
advocated by environmentalists are pure words if you do not specify what you want to keep
and what we want to remove, or at least if we do not debate. The immediate cessation is a
political marker, not a specific claim as a wage increase of 3% or 5! A political marker,
because we know that behind the "progressive" lies badly will 1. not touch the productive
and social relations it generates and 2. to allow time for the big capitalist groups to
recycle gradually in the renewable industry with much happiness they have done in the
nuclear industry.

You can always find slogans or political markers inadequate, not going deep enough or
hiding bad things support the "Old World." It is probably possible to subject to
"immediate stop" that spell out and then cut the heads. But we think it will have to
escape the "more radical than me you're dying" sterile and discouraging for those who find
themselves starting points. We must ensure that each one is positioned in differing
neighbor without imagining mobilizations or provide short-and medium term. It is time to
make "discourse" audible and understandable by people who simply wonder, are wary of
nuclear power, and could perhaps be found in forms of mobilization also invented "for
them", so that 'Then they become "with" them. And which establish the relationship of
forces in the field and not just the ideas, if they are relevant.

Let us remember that in 2002 anti-nuclear demonstrations were organized in five or six
cities in France. They were all in a double success, mainly in Nantes and Toulouse. Double
because on the one hand, they had met more people than expected and because of the other,
we have witnessed the emergence of a strong current "immediate stop", which already marked
divisions that n ' have become more pronounced then. It certainly does not serve the same
soup twice, but we can learn from the recipe. There will probably be fewer people in 2002.
But nothing prevents us to update the "Neither green nor pink immediate shutdown of
nuclear power" who had served and then rallying to be strongly present in the
demonstrations of 13 October to give a body and a different perspective to groups,
attempts coordination meetings that dot the agenda environments antinuclear
environmentalists opposing the government, and, above all, hear them link the struggles
families. Links that are not only geographical, but logical and consistent, because the
reasons that give rise to self-sustaining with each other: thus, on the one hand, major
land as Airport Nantes (NDDL), the high-speed rail lines, high voltage lines, the Grand
Paris, metropolisation territory on large urban centers, etc.., are betting on the
availability and cost indisputable reduced by a continuous growth of electricity
production, on the other, lobbies nuclear, wind farms, shale gas makes the continued
growth of these "needs" equally unquestioned and unquestionable excuses to develop new
electricity generating activities and profits for the capitalist groups concerned.

The abandonment of nuclear equipment and other harmful projects must be understood in
terms of mobilization and political costs for those who defend and implant. The ruling
class is not a contradiction. As it seeks to overwhelm us and discipline us under the
burden of "debt", the pursuit of nuclear as the start of major projects over pharaonic or
less can be achieved by additional debt while apparently he, the coffers are empty, with
new massive loans guaranteed by the French State and maybe tomorrow by the European
super-state ...

The antinuclear mobilization must also be understood as a moment of affirmation and
extension of a current of opinion still diffuse but opposes increasing the productivist
logic that rejects blackmail employment and the "healthy" companies to accept anything as
long as it would boost the profit making machine (see section on Italy in this issue). A
movement which, in hollow or explicitly, would draw a current refusing to be imposing and
deadly dangerous decisions can then justify a security state and an endless consumerism,
profitability and optimal adaptability to our sources and mechanisms the realization of
profits, because it is not, "we do not have a choice!" , A movement which, from the
struggles of site mobilization and solidarity determined refusal manifested in many local
initiatives based, precisely, the question of social choice, of what is right and what is
not of what is appropriate and desirable to do and what it is best to get rid of immediately.